Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, and Causation

The issue in this situation is that whether Sam has been negligent in relation to the damages case to the aircrafts belonging to white limited and green limited and the loss which the passenger of blue limited had to suffer. The issue is also to determine whether the liability for negligence would extend to the damages caused to the Mercedes car or not.

There are three components which has to be satisfied to give rise to a liability of negligence. These three components are

Duty of Care

The Breach of duty of care

Causation (of the injury or harm)

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 had initially invented and applied the principles of Duty of Care, The Breach of duty of care and Causation. The duty of care has to be to addressed through the application of the neighbour rule which the case had provided. The rule makes a neighbour to have a duty of care to another neighbour if it is possible through reasonable foreseeability that the other person may be harmed by carelessness.

The case of D’Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] QSC 103 also had been deployed to analyze duty of care. However this case took a different approach which is known as the proximity approach or the caparo test. The caparo tests analyzes the proximity between two people to determine the duty of care. Where the people are in close proximity to each other and the action of one person can evidently harm the other a duty of care is present.

The case of Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] QCA 103 discussed provisions used to identify a breach of the duty of care. The approach which had been taken by this case is known as the objective test. The person who had a duty of care is replaced with a hypothetical reasonable person and then the actions of such person is compared to the person having duty of care. If the actions are reasonable then there is no breach and in case they are not there is a breach. The reasonability of actions is based on factors like probability and seriousness of the injury and the burden of taking precautions as per section 5C of the Civil Liability Act 2002. It is to be noted as per the case of Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] QSC 79  that the person does not have the obligation of preventing the harm, the obligation is actually to take reasonable care.

The case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394 analyzed the rules relating to causation. In this case it had been stated by the court that the injury if not caused where there is no breach of duty and the sole reason for the damage is the breach of duty the person has caused “causation” the test applied is known as but for test.

Damages are a significant part of the tort or negligence. In the case of Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25) [2014] NSWSC 518 it had been clarified by the court that a person would only be able to claim damages which are reasonably foreseeable.

Application of Law to Different Parties

Contributory negligence is the defence which is applied to limit a liability of negligence. The rule had been deployed in the case of Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 14 JCL 251,

The case stated that when a person has not taken reasonable care to avoid the injury they are negligent themselves in a contributory manner and the damages to be provided to them are reduced with reference to the contributions made by them.

White

In the present situation, Sam can be stated to have a duty of care towards the aircraft of White Ltd. This is because it is foreseeable that if the fuel is of bad quality the aircraft can be subjected to damages. The duty of care is breached according to the objective test as no reasonable person would talk on phone while dealing with Aircraft fuel. Via the “but for” test it is clear that the aircraft would not have been inured if the lid was not open and dust had nit entered the fuel. Thus Sam is negligent. The damages caused to White are reasonably foreseeable and thus Sam is liable.

Mercedes car

In the present situation, Sam can be stated to have a duty of care towards the Mercedes car as well.  This is because it is foreseeable that if the fuel is of bad quality the aircraft can be subjected to damages and can damage other objects surrounding it. The duty of care is breached according to the objective test as no reasonable person would talk on phone while dealing with Aircraft fuel. Via the “but for” test it is clear that the aircraft would not have hit the car if the lid was not open and dust had not entered the fuel. Thus Sam is negligent. The damages caused to White are reasonably foreseeable and thus Sam is liable.  All foreseeable damages have to be paid.

However the car owner had been negligent himself. This is because no reasonable person would park a car near a run way knowing the risks involved. Thus there is contributory negligence and damages will be reduced of nullified.

Blue Passenger

In the present situation Sam can be stated to have a duty of care towards the Blue aircraft passengers as well.  This is because it is foreseeable that if the fuel is of bad quality the aircraft can be subjected to damages and can damage its passengers. The duty of care is breached according to the objective test as no reasonable person would talk on phone while dealing with Aircraft fuel. Via the “but for” test it is clear that the aircraft would have taken off if there was no breach of duty. However the damages which have been caused to the passenger are too remote to be compensated.

Green

As discussed in the case of Stokes v House With No Steps, a person does not have the obligation of preventing the harm; the obligation is actually to take reasonable care. Although the duty of care was present to green, Sam took reasonable care to prevent the injury. Thus he is not negligent for the damages caused to Green.

Conclusion

Sam has to compensate White and to an extent the Mercedes car owner but not the passenger of blue and the aircraft of green.

References

Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 14 JCL 251, 260

Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25) [2014] NSWSC 518

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

D’Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2017] QSC 103

Diocese of Brisbane v Greenway [2017] QCA 103

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562

Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor [2014] NSWCA 394

Stokes v House With No Steps [2016] QSC 79